Who Won the Republican Debate on October 11th?

Who won the latest Republican debate? Going into the debate, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner. After the debate, he remains the frontrunner. Of all the candidates, Romney appeared the most presidential. He is becoming increasingly skilled in debates. Other candidates attempted to challenge Romney on a number of occasions, but he used them as opportunities to promote his candidacy. In some ways, Herman Cain was in the center of the debate. The crowd enjoyed Cain, but he runs the risk of becoming a one-note candidate, known only for his "9-9-9" plan. As for Rick Perry, he was not harmed as he was in previous debates, but he was flat. He seemed afraid of hurting himself. Romney and Cain were comfortable.

The Republican debate this evening had an unusual format. Rather than having each candidate at his own podium, as in all the previous debates, the candidates were seated at one big table. In the past, this format has been known to encourage the candidates to be a bit more civil. For some reason, candidates are less comfortable attacking each other when seated together.

For the first half of the debate, the candidates were indeed fairly civil. They used their responses to go into in-depth discussions of the issues, rather than attack each other. For the first half, there were none of the extended duels that we saw in the September debates (especially between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry).

During the second half of the debate, another unusual debate format was implemented: The candidates were instructed to ask questions of each other, rather than answer questions from the debate moderators. This gave the candidates an opportunity to attack each other.

Several candidates did decide Herman Cain was enough of a threat to attack him. Specifically, they criticized his "9-9-9" plan, saying it is impractical and unlikely to pass Congress. Rick Santorum sarcastically asked the audience whether they would approve of the sales tax portion. Santorum also attacked Cain for lacking experience. Michele Bachmann, odd as ever, made a "number of the beast" reference, noting that the plan is "6-6-6" if turned upside-down.

Though Cain's "9-9-9" plan was criticized, he stood firm. The crowd clearly enjoyed Cain's answers. Unfortunately for Perry, they enjoyed Cain much more than him. Perry missed an opportunity to hurt Cain, who is increasingly climbing in the polls in Perry's states. Ron Paul, being Ron Paul, only participated in a sideshow by attacking Cain for being connected to the Federal Reserve. But perhaps Cain hurt himself the most: Though everyone is now familiar with his plan, Cain runs the risk of becoming a one-note candidate.

Michele Bachmann savaged Rick Perry by questioning him about his lack of conservatism, particularly on spending. Most of the candidates attempted to attack Romney. But Romney was able to use these questions as opportunities to outline his economic plans. For the sixth debate in a row, Romney was asked about Romneycare (this time by Perry). Once more, Romney easily swatted away the question by distinguishing Romneycare from Obamacare--this time referring to Chris Christie's defense of Romney.

Romney did particularly well in answering Jon Huntsman's question about Bain Capital, a company criticized for laying off workers. Romney explained that Bain started many businesses, and he named several of them, including some large businesses like Staples.

Romney was the only candidate to use a clever tactic: Instead of attempting to harm a candidate with a question, he sent an open-ended softball question to Michele Bachmann. Romney obviously hopes to attack Perry by helping Bachmann. Romney's strategy allowed him to avoid looking contentious while also denying Perry a chance to speak.

In general, the minor candidates--except for Cain, if he can still be considered a minor candidate--did not have much opportunity to break out from the pack. Romney was the clear winner of the debate. While Perry did not harm himself, he was unable to do damage to his competitors. Perry is behind and is not catching up.

Republican Primary Debate in New Hampshire on October 11th

The first Republican primary debate of the month will be held on Tuesday. The debate, sponsored by the Washington Post and Bloomberg TV, will be televised on Bloomberg TV at 8:00pm Eastern. At this point, it's unclear how many people will actually watch the debate. Unlike previous debates, which have been aired on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, this debate will be on an obscure channel. Even people who want to watch the debate may have difficulty finding the channel. On the other hand, major gaffes can be broadcast in sound-bites on other networks. Thus, the post-debate coverage may be more important than the debate itself.

Once again, Rick Perry will have a lot to prove. Expectations for Perry are low, thanks to his poor debate performances last month. However, Perry's campaign promised he would be better prepared in future debates, and this will be his first opportunity to prove that he can improve. If Perry were to commit major gaffes during this debate, he could suffer further drops in the polls. If Perry acquits himself well--given the low expectations, an average performance may equal "well" for Perry--then his campaign will call him the "comeback kid."

Mitt Romney is likely to be in the crosshairs during the debate. Since Perry's fall, Romney has taken the lead in the latest Republican primary polls. As the new frontrunner, he will face attacks from Perry and perhaps the minor candidates. Questions about Romneycare have gotten stale--not a single debate has gone by without one. Yet Perry has new attack ads criticizing Romneycare, so Romney will probably be asked to address the issue once again.

Perry and/or Romney could be asked about the Mormon issue, as a Perry-allied pastor recently attacked Mormonism. If Romney is asked about Mormonism, he will brush the question aside, but it will be interesting to see if Perry disavows anti-Mormonism in the campaign. Meanwhile, Perry may be asked about recent news coverage of the racially-inflammatory former name of his ranch.

Another candidate viewers can expect to see in the crosshairs in Herman Cain. While Herman Cain is considered unelectable for a number of reasons, he has climbed in the polls thanks to Perry's fall. The debate moderators will feel it necessary to scrutinize his gaffes and policy positions. The bigger question is whether other candidates will also attack Cain. Do they consider him the "flavor of the week," or do they consider him a threat? Their decisions whether to attack Cain will enlighten.

The actions of the minor candidates with regard to Perry will also be revealing. Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann did great damage to Perry by questioning his conservatism. Will they keep at it, since Perry is putting all his resources into Iowa and South Carolina, where they must also win? Or will they respond to the polls by spending less time on Perry and more on Romney? Unfortunately for the minor candidates, there has only been one Iowa Caucus poll released since the last September debate, and none released in South Carolina. They may not know which candidate to hit harder.

Mitt Romney Leads the Polls; Herman Cain Rises

With the September debates well behind us and the October debates to begin fairly soon, it's time for another look at the recent polls, including national primary polls and early state polls. Whenever possible, it's best to review polling data in groups rather than putting too much stock in each new poll. Individual polls can be--and often are--flawed. But if all the polls say the same thing, there's probably something to it.

There has been little polling in the early states, but several national polls have been conducted recently. Here's what the polls say:

National Primary Polls
10/04 Pew Research -- Romney 22, Perry 17, Cain 13, Paul 12
10/03 Quinnipiac -- Romney 22, Cain 17, Perry 14, Gingrich 8
10/02 ABC/Wash Post -- Romney 25, Cain 17, Perry 17, Gingrich 9
10/02 CBS News -- Romney 17, Cain 17, Perry 12, Gingrich 8
09/27 Fox News -- Romney 23, Perry 19, Cain 17, Gingrich 11

Iowa Caucus
09/27 ARG -- Romney 21, Bachmann 15, Perry 14, Paul 12

New Hampshire Primary
10/06 UNH/WMUR -- Romney 37, Cain 12, Paul 9, Giuliani 8

Florida Primary
09/27 SurveyUSA -- Romney 27, Cain 25, Perry 13, Gingrich 6

The first thing that should stand out is the fact that Mitt Romney is leading in every single poll, both national and state-by-state, including the Iowa poll. That feat might have been more difficult to pull off if South Carolina had been polled recently, as Romney tends not to do as well there. In one poll (the national CBS News one), Herman Cain is tied with Romney for first. That's the outlier of the bunch.

It's obvious that the Romney camp should be happy. About a month and a half ago, Rick Perry led in the Republican primary polls, at least the national ones. Now Romney is back on top. Leading in Iowa should be particularly encouraging--though it's only one poll--because if Romney takes Iowa, the race is over.

On the other hand, Romney's lead is quite small. Aside from the New Hampshire poll, Romney leads by no more than a handful of points. Moreover, putting the NH poll aside again, Romney has a ceiling of 27 points. Nationally, he tends to poll in the low 20s. That's not where a strong frontrunner polls.

Even so, Romney's position is even stronger than the polls indicate. In explaining who will win the Republican primary in 2012, we noted that voters make their strategic shift only in the weeks before the votes are cast. Romney's chief virtue is his high perceived electability. Thus, it's only in the future that voters will be saying "I just want someone who can beat Barack Obama, so I'll support Romney." Until then, voters will consider unelectable candidates. Romney's poll numbers are likely to spike in December.

There are other interesting tidbits to be gleaned from the latest polls: Rick Perry is certainly down, and Herman Cain has gone up dramatically. It seems most of Perry's support has gone to Cain, as opposed to Romney or Michele Bachmann. Since Bachmann is gunning for the same voters as Perry, that's a terrible sign for Bachmann. Whether Cain can hold onto his numbers will be the subject of a future post.

Not to be missed is the fact that Newt Gingrich is pulling into fourth place. Partly he benefits from high name recognition, but it also has to do with his debate performances. Voters have negative memories of Gingrich, and they like him better on stage. They have essentially been reintroduced to him. Unfortunately for Gingrich, he is a distant fourth, and he has no early state in which to play. But at least he's better off than Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman, who so far are nowhere to be seen. As for Michele Bachmann, these are truly awful numbers.

Intrade Odds: Mitt Romney Dominates the Competition

Now that Chris Christie and Sarah Palin have finally departed, it's time for another look at the Intrade odds. It has been just over two weeks since the Republican primary debate on September 22nd, after which Rick Perry suffered a tremendous loss in support. There has been ample time for that development to sink in for the Intrade market on the 2012 Republican nomination.

Mitt Romney's lead has grown, especially since Christie's odds vaporized. Romney has climbed to 61.5%. That's more than double what he had prior to the September debates, and actually much higher than any candidate--including Romney himself--posted earlier this year. Before now, frontrunners tended to top out at about 40%.

Intrade investors have experienced no second thoughts about Perry's decline. In fact, Perry's support has eroded several more points since last time we checked: Perry is down to 19.1%. Thus, Romney has more than triple the odds of his nearest competitor. Interestingly, the Intrade odds on the nomination are beginning to look much more like Elephant Watcher's assessment of the odds of each candidate winning the Republican primary.

In third place, Herman Cain has 7.0%, and everyone else is under 5%. Cain has benefited from some good polling recently, but Intrade investors are clearly skeptical about his chances. They still perceive Perry to be in second place. Michele Bachmann is far behind at 1.4%. The investors have little faith in Rick Santorum's ability to break out of the pack: He's at 0.5%. This reflects the Intrade markets' emphasis on polling data. Santorum may have gotten some attention at recent debates, but his poll numbers have gone nowhere--yet.

Finally, a shift has occurred for the first time in the Intrade markets on the individual state contests. In the Iowa Intrade market, Perry's advantage has shrunk to 41% over Romney's 27%. Bachmann, who once dominated the Iowa polls, is down to 18%. Cain has only an 11% chance, which clearly reflects some error in the Intrade market. If Cain has a 7% chance of winning the nomination, surely he should have greater than an 11% chance of winning Iowa, which would be crucial for him?

The New Hampshire Intrade market has Romney dominating with nearly an 80% chance to win. No one else is even in double-digits there.

The news is much better for Perry in the South Carolina Intrade market, where he is given 71% to Romney's 30%. There's also evidence of market inefficiency here, as Cain is given only 12.5%. (The total figures don't always add up to 100% due to the difference between buy and sell orders on low-volume markets.)

The Florida Intrade market is interesting. It has Perry and Romney tied at about 40% each. Florida often serves as a tie-breaker, and surely if Romney had as great a chance at winning the nomination as Intrade believes, Romney ought to be the favorite in Florida. The latest Florida primary polls also show Romney ahead. The Intrade market may reflect an assumption that Perry has an advantage in a Southern state, and perhaps that Romney would prevail in a drawn-out contest, even if Perry wins the tie-breaker.

Sarah Palin Announces She Will Not Run for President

Palin

Sarah Palin released a written statement today explaining that she will not run for president in 2012. The long-awaited announcement, coming only a day after Chris Christie's own, finally puts all speculation to an end: There are eight Republicans running for president, and all the rest have declined to run--except for Tim Pawlenty, who withdrew a few months after entering the race. The field is set in stone. It will not change until the next candidate withdraws from the race, likely after the Iowa Caucus.

It's worth contrasting Palin with the other five candidates who declined to enter the race. Haley Barbour announced his intentions in April, while Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, and Donald Trump did the same back in May. Only Sarah Palin and Chris Christie waited until the last possible moment to make their announcements. But while Christie was genuinely undecided until the night before his press conference, Palin likely made her final decision no later than early June of this year.

Why? Unlike the actual late entrants, Palin never had any reason to delay getting into the race. Michele Bachmann had to wait because she feared Palin getting in the race; Jon Huntsman had to return from his post in China; Rick Perry had to at least serve some time in his third term as Texas governor. By contrast, Palin would have had every reason to get in early. In fact, it would have been vital for her to get in the race early enough to prevent Bachmann from getting in and splitting her vote. Unlike the others on the Fox News payroll (Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee), Palin was never required to make a public decision in May. She may have made private assurances to Fox News that she was not going to run.

Thus, it is fair to assume that Palin has spent the last several months confident that she would not run. Why didn't she make her announcement? Palin enjoyed the media attention. Her high profile was also necessary for her to continue making an income as a conservative firebrand. Unlike the other candidates, Palin manipulated her supporters into getting their hopes up, only to dash them in the end.

Why didn't Palin run? There were two good reasons. First, all of the polls showed that Palin had no chance of winning either the Republican primary or the general election. It wasn't a close call; it was overwhelming. Palin had no desire to be humiliated in an unsuccessful run which would have lasted for the better part of a year. Second, Palin realized that she could make more money for less work by being a political celebrity rather than a political candidate. The year after her failed run for the vice presidency, Palin abruptly announced that she was resigning from her position as governor of Alaska. She then set about making money that she could not have legally made while serving as governor. Her resignation was one of the prime factors that made her incapable of winning the Republican presidential primary. Indeed, at that point she may have already decided against running for president.

What will be the effect on the race now that Palin isn't running? There will be little impact. Nearly all Republican voters either discounted her or did not plan to vote for her. There are therefore few votes to redistribute. Only the diehard Palin supporters remained. Those votes are likely to go to other unelectable Tea Party candidates, such as Herman Cain. Michele Bachmann is an obvious choice for disaffected Palin supporters, but the feud between Bachmann and Palin poisoned the well.

Elephant Watcher has long calculated that Palin's odds of winning the nomination were 0%. Thus, her departure does not raise any other candidate's chances of winning.

Mitt Romney Projected to Win Republican 2012 Primary

With 0 of the primaries and caucuses complete, and with 0% of the delegates awarded, Elephant Watcher is now able to project that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential primary of 2012. Elephant Watcher calculates that Romney's odds of winning the Republican nomination are currently 62%.

Romney has prevailed in spite of the deep skepticism many Republicans have about his authenticity. Romney's continued support of the healthcare plan he instituted in Massachusetts (frequently derided as "Romneycare" and compared to Obamacare) has done lasting damage to his conservative credentials. The Tea Party widely regards Romney as a "RINO." Romney, though presidential in appearance, lacks the charisma and loyal followers that normally mark a strong candidate.

How did Romney secure victory in the Republican primary? Essentially by default. Primary voters value electability above all else, and the other highly-electable candidates have either declined to run or withdrawn from the race. Chris Christie was very likely to defeat Romney, but he decided not to run. Chris Christie's decision not to run was the final domino to fall, but it was not the only one. Earlier this year, Romney faced a tough potential competitor in Mike Huckabee, who led in all of the Iowa and South Carolina polls. But Huckabee inexplicably decided not to run.

Other highly-electable consensus candidates also stepped aside. Mitch Daniels declined to enter the race, and Tim Pawlenty unwisely chose to quit the race after a poor showing in the Ames straw poll in August. This left only Romney and Jon Huntsman with a high electability ranking. If the 2012 Republican primary has proven anything, it's that the race becomes easier to win when all of your competitors forfeit.

Romney's strongest remaining competitor, Rick Perry, also self-destructed, though he has not left the race. Perry's poor debate performances and attempts to directly attack Romney on stage only served to highlight Romney's superior status.

The primary calendar isn't heavily tilted in Romney's favor, given that Iowa and South Carolina are not favorable turf. But New Hampshire has thus far been an unassailable stronghold for Romney.

National polls are again showing Romney in the lead. Yet the polls understate Romney's strength for a number of reasons. First, voters typically shift in favor of electable candidates only as voting day approaches. When that strategic shift occurs (probably in December), Romney will be the only beneficiary, since his chief competitors are considered unelectable. Second, Romney has a stronger stage presence than the last time he ran. As voting day draws closer, more voters will pay attention to the race and will see the "new" Romney. Third, Romney is better at debating than his competitors. Though Perry has a chance to improve, it's just as likely that Romney will become even more skilled at slapping him down. The more debates that take place, and the more people who watch the debates, the more Romney's image as "the adult in the room" will solidify. Fourth, not all of Romney's competitors have had their time in the sun yet; when candidates like Cain or Santorum go up in the polls, they will be subject to more scrutiny and their numbers will fall again. Finally, the Christie supporters will now move into the Romney camp. All of the money and campaign resources that have heretofore been on the sidelines will be acquired by Romney.

Chris Christie Announces He Is Not Running for President

Christie

In a long-awaited announcement of his intentions, Chris Christie held a press conference today and declared that he will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2012. Christie cited his commitment to the state of New Jersey as the sole reason for his deciding not to run. He said that he could never get past the idea of leaving the state early.

Christie's announcement finally places him in the "declined to run" category on the Campaign Status page. Only Sarah Palin remains as a candidate who has not officially declared her intentions.

Christie has long held that he would not run, and repeatedly--emphatically--denied that he would enter the race. But Elephant Watcher dismissed those denials because they were not made in a convincing manner. Today, Christie met the criteria for an actual denial. Until now, Christie only denied his intentions in response to questions. Today's press conference, like Mike Huckabee's prepared TV statement and the written statements by Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and Donald Trump, was was initiated by the candidate himself.

If Christie's previous denials had meant anything, it would not have been necessary for Christie to hold a press conference today. Christie's actions, consistent with the criteria for a "convincing denial," have vindicated the criteria, which may be used as a guide in future election seasons. If a candidate makes a denial only in response to someone else's question (e.g. during a TV interview or public Q&A session), it is not on his own timetable, and therefore carries no weight.

Christie's departure changes the race dramatically. Elephant Watcher has recalculated the odds of each candidate winning the Republican primary, and a detailed analysis will be released in a future post.

Why didn't Christie run? Many political commentators will point to the difficulty of entering the race so late in the game. If Christie's decision was primarily governed by his wife's veto, and if his wife changed her mind too late in the game, then perhaps there is some merit to that argument. However, it is more likely that there were other factors. A late run would be more difficult, but not by much. Christie's odds of winning the nomination were still great, since most voters are influenced by the debates and the candidates' fundamental attributes. Most voters, even a large percentage of those in early primary states, have not even begun paying attention to the race. Thus, if Christie wanted to run and win, he could have done it.

It's more likely that Christie's decision was, as he said, influenced by his commitment to the state of New Jersey. Christie has only served a bit more than a year and a half out of his four-year term. Christie's concern and love for New Jersey is genuine. Running for president now would have essentially ended Christie's governorship, given the time commitment. Even if Christie lost the Republican presidential primary and dropped out a few months from now, New Jerseyans would never look at him the same way. Christie may have also been influenced by new polling that suggests he can win reelection in New Jersey.

Furthermore, Christie must have felt that the country does not need him to run. If the frontrunner or strongest candidates were unelectable and/or unacceptable to Christie, he would have felt a greater need to run. For now, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner, and Christie likely approves of Romney. Romney's strong showing in the debates not only would have made Romney look better in Christie's eyes, but would also have made Romney appear a more formidable primary opponent. Were Christie to run, he would have needed to defeat Romney in New Hampshire.

Ultimately, this was a case of poor timing. Christie has unusually powerful rhetorical gifts, and he is an effective politician. If he had become New Jersey's governor a few years earlier, it is likely that he would be the next president of the United States. Now it is questionable whether he will ever have the chance to run for the presidency. If Romney wins the presidency in 2012, Christie cannot run in 2016; if not, Marco Rubio may still pose an insurmountable obstacle in 2016 or 2020, having potentially served as Romney's vice president and/or running mate.

Only time will tell whether Christie will live to regret today's decision.

Florida's January Primary Date Pushes the Calendar

The Florida state Republican Party has decided to schedule its primary for January 31, 2012. As with the 2008 primary, this move places Florida among the ranks of the early primary states--the others being Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. The dates of the primaries and caucuses are determined by the Republican Party in each state. But the national Republican Party sets certain guidelines to ensure that the states hold their contests in an orderly manner.

Originally, the first contest was supposed to be the Iowa Caucus, scheduled for February 6th. The national Republican Party's rules provide that if a state like Florida holds its primary before then, the state is punished by having its primary delegates reduced by half. To illustrate the concept, recall that during presidential elections, each state has a certain number of electoral votes based on the state's population size. During the Republican nomination process, each state has a certain number of delegates, also based on state population. Florida's punishment will reduce its delegate count, making the state less valuable to win--in theory.

The reality is different. Unlike the general election, in which all states vote simultaneously, the Republican primary is conducted over a period of months, with some states voting much earlier than others. The earliest states are the most important to win, because they allow a candidate to display his ability to win, gain media attention, and gain momentum. If a candidate fails to win in early primary states, his candidacy will lose steam. By the time the later states begin holding their contests, the nomination is usually wrapped up.

Thus, even though Florida loses half its delegates, it is far more valuable to win now because its contest will take place early in the calendar. That having been said, Florida will probably be the fifth contest, as the traditional early primaries (IA, NH, NV, SC) will move up their own primary dates earlier in the calendar.

Florida will be early, but it will be last among the early states. In 2008, Rudy Giuliani put all of his resources into Florida. By the time the Florida Primary rolled around, he was already out of the race. Florida's role is that of a tie-breaker: If one candidate wins IA and SC while another candidate wins NH and NV, the winner of Florida will have the edge going forward.

What is the effect of this? Since the early primaries will move up their contests to January, the order will not change. The primary season will be one month shorter, but that probably will not have much of an impact, even upon a late entrant like Chris Christie. It may be frustrating for minor candidates like Rick Santorum or Herman Cain, who will take awhile to pick up steam (if they can at all).

Instead, the biggest impact is on the primary debates. There are three primary debates already scheduled for January. Under the original calendar, all three would have taken place before the Iowa Caucus. Now, it's possible that two or three of those debates will take place only after Iowa has voted. A candidate like Rick Perry might breathe a sigh of relief. But there are still many debates to be held.

Finally, Elephant Watcher has added the Florida primary polls to the Primaries page. Florida's polls should always be taken with a grain of salt. One must remember that by the time Florida votes, the voters will be heavily influenced by the outcome of the previous four contests. Elephant Watcher does not compile the state polls for contests taking place after Florida, since polls of those states are rare, and because they will be even more influenced by the outcome of earlier contests. Florida's polls are included because it is at least somewhat useful to see the early shape of the field.

2012 Republican Primary in Review: September 2011

Each month, Elephant Watcher recaps the activity that occurred in the Republican primary during the previous month. Follow these links to read earlier recaps: May, June, July, August.

September marked the beginning of Phase Three of the Republican primary. From this point forward, the candidates had a real chance to speak with the voters in early primary states, who had just begun to pay attention. Primary debates, which had taken place only intermittently during the earlier phases of the campaign, dominated the timeline. There were three debates scheduled in September, and the candidates would be put to the test.

Rick Perry started the month in a fairly strong position. He was the frontrunner in all of the national primary polls. In reality, Perry's status as the frontrunner was exaggerated: While easily leading South Carolina polls, he only had a tenuous lead in Iowa, and he was dominated by Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. Nevertheless, the Perry-as-frontrunner meme took hold. Only half a month after entering the race, Perry was considered by most observers to be well ahead of Romney.

It didn't take long for Perry to get himself into trouble. During the Republican debate on September 7th, he had harsh words for Social Security. Romney performed better, and Intrade investors put the two candidates at parity. Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann seemed to vanish.

Less than a week later, at the Republican debate on September 12th, Perry stumbled again. He took heat from minor candidates, including Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, for not being conservative enough. Perry found it difficult to parry these attacks. Romney seemed presidential by comparison.

In response to Perry's weak performances at the first two debates, the media narrative placed Perry and Romney in roughly equivalent positions, calling it a "two-man race." But it was clear that the momentum was with Romney, who fared better in each debate.

At the Republican debate on September 22nd, Perry suffered his third strike. Not only was he repeatedly attacked by Santorum and counter-attacked by Romney at every turn, Perry had difficulty speaking coherently. The cumulative effect of Perry's three weak debate performances was disastrous.

Although there were few polls being conducted (especially in early primary states), Perry's supporters sensed trouble and began looking elsewhere. Bachmann was unable to take advantage in Iowa as she, too, seemed to be wasting away into irrelevance. By comparison, Herman Cain and Santorum looked appealing to those looking for a new Anti-Romney.

As Perry crashed and burned, speculation about the possibility of Chris Christie announcing he will run for president reached a fever pitch. Although Christie had previously denied that he would run (with each denial made in an unconvincing manner), new reports repeatedly indicated that Christie was reconsidering. The Anti-Romney forces, especially those among the Republican establishment, begged Christie to enter the race. As the month closed, all eyes were on Christie. His decision promised to produce a seismic shift in the race. Elephant Watcher calculates that Christie's odds of winning the Republican nomination are 57%.

Can Rick Perry Be Counted Out Already?

Perry

It has been just over a week since the Republican primary debate on September 22nd. Rick Perry, who was considered the frontrunner after entering the race in August, has lost a lot of ground. The establishment view is that Perry is not electable, and that he is terrible at debates. Since that third September debate, Rick Perry's Intrade odds have collapsed. Prior to his first debate, Intrade investors gave Perry a 40% chance of winning the Republican nomination--ten points more than Mitt Romney. Now they give him only a 21% chance. By contrast, Romney has received positive reviews. But is Perry really out of the race?

Elephant Watcher agrees that Perry's debate performances have lowered his odds of winning the nomination while raising Romney's odds. Prior to the debates, Elephant Watcher's calculation of the odds had 18% for Romney and 16% for Perry; it is now 22% for Romney and 12% for Perry.

But even if Perry does not win the nomination, it is unlikely that he will collapse completely. He may still have a significant impact on the race, especially in Iowa and South Carolina. Perry remains as a significant obstacle to any other potential Anti-Romney candidate. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain have both been touted by anti-Romney commentators as potential replacements. They will need to get past Perry first, and he will not make it easy.

Despite his disastrous debate performances, Perry is still famously skilled at the so-called "retail politics" that occurs in the early primary states: Face-to-face meetings with individuals and small groups. Perry is well-funded. At least for now, Perry rivals even Romney when it comes to his "political machine." Despite the new concerns about Perry's electability, he is still considered more electable than Cain or Michele Bachmann; Santorum remains an unknown.

It's also possible that Perry can rehabilitate his image in future debates. On the one hand, Perry's poor performances in all three debates indicate that he is simply bad at debating. This may not change. But that doesn't mean Perry cannot improve. His campaign almost certainly realizes that his future depends on improving in debates. That should force Perry to focus. Expectations for Perry are so low now that any improvement may be seen as a positive, even if Perry is not outstanding. If he fails to shoot himself in the foot at the next debate, his campaign will undoubtedly hail him as "the comeback kid" and attempt to push a "redemption" narrative in the media.

If another candidate wishes to replace Perry as the chief Anti-Romney figure, he must convincingly lead Perry in the polls for awhile. Only then will Perry's numbers crash and support coalesce around Perry's replacement.